Lott v. The District Court of Southern District of Ohio et al

Filing 28

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 27 MOTION filed by Harry William Lott. It is RECOMMENDED that Motion 27 be DENIED - objections due w/in fourteen (14) days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark R. Abel on 11/06/2013. (sr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

Harry William Lott,

:
Plaintiff

:
:

v.
The District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio,

Civil Action 2:13-cv-00562
Judge Marbley

:

Magistrate Judge Abel

:
Defendant
Report and Recommendation
This matter is before the Magistrate Judge on plaintiff Harry William Lott’s
October 15, 2013 motion pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff argues that an exception to the Eleventh Amendment permits citizens of
any state to seek an injunction against state officials in federal court to end a continuing
violation of federal law. Plaintiff maintains he is entitled to a hearing under procedural
due process and that the Court is required to provide him a hearing pursuant to Rule
12(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure within ten days. If the Court fails to do so,
plaintiff maintains that he will file an appeal and have this case moved to the United
Kingdom.
Plaintiff was not denied procedural due process. Plaintiff was provided with an
opportunity to object to the Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal of

1

his complaint. Plaintiff filed objections, which were considered by the Court and
overruled. The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that plaintiff Harry William Lott’s
October 15, 2013 motion pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. be
DENIED.
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within
fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties a motion for reconsideration by the
Court, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof
in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B); Rule 72(b),
Fed. R. Civ. P.
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District
Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-152 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981);
United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005); Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373,
380 (6th Cir. 1995). Even when timely objections are filed, appellate review of issues not
raised in those objections is waived. Willis v. Sullivan, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991).

s/Mark R. Abel
United States Magistrate Judge

2